This is the final technical report for a three-site project that is part of an overall program funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) and industry partners to obtain the necessary information to assess the feasibility and costs of controlling mercury from coal-fired utility plants. This report summarizes results from tests conducted at MidAmerican's Louisa Generating Station and Entergy's Independence Steam Electric Station (ISES) and sorbent screening at MidAmerican's Council Bluffs Energy Center (CBEC) (subsequently renamed Walter Scott Energy Center (WSEC)). Detailed results for Independence and Louisa are presented in the respective Topical Reports. As no full-scale testing was conducted at CBEC, screening updates were provided in the quarterly updates to DOE. ADA-ES, Inc., with support from DOE/NETL, EPRI, and other industry partners, has conducted evaluations of EPRI's TOXECON II{trademark} process and of high-temperature reagents and sorbents to determine the capabilities of sorbent/reagent injection, including activated carbon, for mercury control on different coals and air emissions control equipment configurations. An overview of each plant configuration is presented: (1) MidAmerican's Louisa Generating Station burns Powder River Basin (PRB) coal in its 700-MW Unit 1 and employs hot-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) with flue gas conditioning for particulate control. This part of the testing program evaluated the effect of reagents used in the existing flue gas conditioning on mercury removal. (2) MidAmerican's Council Bluffs Energy Center typically burns PRB coal in its 88-MW Unit 2. It employs a hot-side ESP for particulate control. Solid sorbents were screened for hot-side injection. (3) Entergy's Independence Steam Electric Station typically burns PRB coal in its 880-MW Unit 2. Various sorbent injection tests were conducted on 1/8 to 1/32 of the flue gas stream either within or in front of one of four ESP boxes (SCA = 542 ft{sup 2}/kacfm), specifically ESP B. Initial mercury control evaluations indicated that although significant mercury control could be achieved by using the TOXECON II{trademark} design, the sorbent concentration required was higher than expected, possibly due to poor sorbent distribution. Subsequently, the original injection grid design was modeled and the results revealed that the sorbent distribution pattern was determined by the grid design, fluctuations in flue gas flow rates, and the structure of the ESP box. To improve sorbent distribution, the injection grid and delivery system were redesigned and the effectiveness of the redesigned system was evaluated. This project was funded through the DOE/NETL Innovations for Existing Plants program. It was a Phase II project with the goal of developing mercury control technologies that can achieve 50-70% mercury capture at costs 25-50% less than baseline estimates of $50,000-$70,000/lb of mercury removed. Results from testing at Independence indicate that the DOE goal was successfully achieved. Further improvements in the process are recommended, however. Results from testing at Louisa indicate that the DOE goal was not achievable using the tested high-temperature sorbent. Sorbent screening at Council Bluffs also indicated that traditional solid sorbents may not achieve significant mercury removal in hot-side applications.
